Gaveglia v. Barrack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gaveglia v. Barrack

150 A.D.2d 341, 541 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5686

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 1, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 150 A.D.2d 341 (Gaveglia v. Barrack) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gaveglia v. Barrack, 150 A.D.2d 341, 541 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., arising out of an automobile accident, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mallon, J.), entered April 22, 1988, which denied his motion for leave to serve an amended answer including the affirmative defense of release.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion since he failed to establish that the proposed affirmative defense of release was meritorious. (CPLR 3025 [b]; Goldstein v Barco of Cal., 109 AD2d 817). The defendant failed to establish by an affidavit by one with personal knowledge that the check representing the consideration for the settlement was ever forwarded to the plaintiff’s counsel, the plaintiff’s counsel categorically denied ever receiving the check and the record is clear that the check was never negotiated (cf., Elliot v Gehen, 105 AD2d 1112). Therefore, under these circumstances where there was no showing of the exchange of consideration, the court correctly found that the settlement agreement was never consummated. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence, Hooper and Harwood, JJ. concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., arising out of an automobile accident, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mallon, J.), entered April 22, 1988, which denied his motion for leave to serve an amended answer including the affirmative defense of release.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion since he failed to establish that the proposed affirmative defense of release was meritorious. (CPLR 3025 [b]; Goldstein v Barco of Cal., 109 AD2d 817). The defendant failed to establish by an affidavit by one with personal knowledge that the check representing the consideration for the settlement was ever forwarded to the plaintiff’s counsel, the plaintiff’s counsel categorically denied ever receiving the check and the record is clear that the check was never negotiated (cf., Elliot v Gehen, 105 AD2d 1112). Therefore, under these circumstances where there was no showing of the exchange of consideration, the court correctly found that the settlement agreement was never consummated. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence, Hooper and Harwood, JJ. concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 A.D.2d 341, 541 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaveglia-v-barrack-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack